People v. Maiden CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Aug 12, 2022 No. B313407Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant forfeits a challenge to the imposition of fines and fees based on an inability to pay by failing to present evidence of such inability in the trial court. Furthermore, the court found that a trial court may properly infer a defendant's ability to pay based on potential future prison wages.

Issues

Whether a defendant forfeits a challenge to the imposition of fines and fees by failing to present evidence of inability to pay in the trial court.
Whether a trial court may consider a defendant's future prison wages when determining the ability to pay fines and fees.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that appellant forfeited this argument by failing to present evidence below of his alleged inability to pay, and that in any case, the trial court was justified in finding appellant could pay from his prison wages.”

“a defendant must in the first instance contest in the trial court his or her ability to pay the fines, fees and assessments to be imposed and at a hearing present evidence of his or her inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court”

“The trial court did not err in inferring appellant’s ability to pay from his probable future wages, including his prison earnings.”

Filed 8/12/22 P. v. Maiden CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B313407

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA148039) v.

DESHAWN MAIDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Shultz, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________________________

INTRODUCTION In the proceedings below, the trial court imposed on appellant Deshawn Maiden $700 in restitution fines and $560 in fees. On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in failing to stay the fines and in imposing the fees because the court had no basis to find he could pay them. We conclude that appellant forfeited this argument by failing to present evidence below of his alleged inability to pay, and that in any case, the trial court was justified in finding appellant could pay from his prison wages. We therefore affirm.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS In January 2020, appellant was charged by information with one count of murder; the information alleged that appellant committed the murder with a firearm and for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a gang. In June 2021, as part of a plea agreement in which the murder count would be dismissed, appellant pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter, which was added to the information, and admitted to using a firearm while committing the offense.

People v. Maiden CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B313407

DESHAWN MAIDEN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MANELLA, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.

COLLINS, J.

AI Brief